I have had to split this into two because it was too long. This thread is
growing too long, and seems now to be going nowhere. Therefore, I will
probably terminate it after thise, unless John replies with something
genuinely new that has not already been said. I am sure this definition of
"design" issue will come up again, and again, and again...!
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999 23:39:44 -0500 John E. Rylander wrote:
[...]
>>JR>Howard and every other EC/TE I know of believes in intelligent
>>design.
>SJ>One would never realise it, from their writings. Indeed, since they attack
>>those who espouse Intelligent Design, a reasonable assumption would be that
>>EC/TEs really don't believe in Intelligent Design.
JR>I don't mean this in a hostile way, but I think you tend inadvertently to
>equivocate a bit, this being an instance. EC/TE's being very receptive to
>intelligent design in the broad sense of the term has little to do with
>their being receptive to Intelligent Design in the narrower sense of the
>term (involving Johnson's view of science, Behe's view of IC, etc.).
I appreciate John's politeness here but the fact is that I don't "equivocate"
on this point at all. When I say "one would never realise it from their
writings" that " EC/TEs believe in intelligent design, I mean "intelligent
design" in *both* the broad and narrow sense.
I cannot recall *ever* seeing EC/TEs saying anything positive about "intelligent
design" either "in the broad sense of the term" or "in the narrower sense of the
term". In fact EC/TEs rarely mention "intelligent design" at all, except to argue
against it!
For example, before writing my original comment above that John is responding
to, I looked up the index of Howard's book _The Fourth Day_. It does not have
"design" or "intelligent design" in the index, or the table of contents. Now maybe
those terms are there somewhere in the book, but it is not obvious that Howard
believes in "intelligent design" (broad or narrow), but I assume he *must* as a
Christian. But if EC/TEs do at least believe in "intelligent design in the broad sense
of the term" why don't they mention it, and mention it *prominently*?
My assumption is that EC/TEs minds are so influenced by Darwinism's anti- design
way of thinking that they give only lip service to design and attack their fellow
Christians who believe more overtly in intelligent design (broad or narrow).
[...]
>>>SJ>... ID does not exclude EC/TEs or YECs. The other
>>>list I am on has IDers who range from TEs to YEcs and everything in
>>>between...The only thing that ID would exclude are people who are hostile to
>>>>the advancement of ID....
>>JR>I guess I don't know what ID means anymore then. All the
>>>pro-ID stuff that I am familiar with is explicitly at odds with EC/TE, usually
>>>relying on the standard...criticisms of
>>>evolutionary theory...more recently relying on Behe's thesis that irreducible
>>>complexity necessitates un-evolvability (a thesis that seems to me mistaken).
>SJ>The problem is mainly on the EC/TEs side. They want to dogmatically rule
>>out any intervention by God and have Him solely working through natural
>>processes. The ID side agrees that God works through natural processes
>>but refuses to rule out that God could also have worked interventionally.
JR>I don't think this is true of most EC/TEs, at least not most of the
>theologically conservative ones.
I would claim it *is* true of *most* EC/TEs. I can think of only one TE who does
not "rule out any intervention by God".
But Howard does "rule out any intervention by God", because he espouses a
doctrine of "functional integrity" and "a gapless economy:"
"No, Basil and Augustine have no lessons for us on matters biological. But as I
reflect on the sorry state of contemporary discussion regarding the relationship of
Christian belief and evolutionary science, I am convinced that the fruitfulness of
our discourse would be vastly improved if we could recover from their theological
work what I have come to call "the forgotten doctrine of Creation's functional
integrity." Basil and Augustine held high views of what God brought into being.
The created world envisioned by Basil and Augustine was a world endowed by the
Creator with a functionally complete economy-no gaps, no deficiencies, no need
for God to overpower matter or to perform theokinetic acts in order to make up
for capacities missing in the economy of the created world." (Van Till H.J., "God
and Evolution: An Exchange I," First Things, Vol. 34, June/July 1993, p37)
JR>Remember: PROVISIONALLY ruling something of SCIENCE, until such time
>as there is strong evidence for it, is -very- different from either (1)
>ABSOLUTELY ruling something out of SCIENCE, or (2) ruling something out
>of REALITY or REASON. Once again, it's easy accidentally to equivocate here,
>conflating science with reason, or science with truth/reality. (There's
>much more to be said here that I won't say, simply to save space.)
That might be the *theory* of "science" but *in practice* they do rule a
supernatural Intelligent Designer out of "reality" and "reason". As Richard
Lewontin pointed out, modern science's materialism must be *absolute*:
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to
accept a material explanation for the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that
we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus
of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter
how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that
materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (Lewontin
R., "Billions and Billions of Demons," review of "The Demon-Haunted World:
Science as a Candle in the Dark," by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9,
1997, p31)
JR>To be more explicit: nearly all EC/TEs are very hesitant to permit "episodic
>creation" into -science-
EC/TEs are not just "hesitant". They are downright *hostile* to allowing Howard
calls "episodic creation" into science. In this they show the adverse influence of
scientific naturalism on their Christian thinking.
JR>(since then science and theology would be conflated).
And what would be wrong with that, if the "theology" is *true*? What John and
EC/TEs are saying is that it is OK if materialism (which they as Christians claim to
be *false*) is "conflated" with "science" but not Christian theism (which they
believe is *true*):
This is an absurd, self-contradictory position and shows why TE/EC is
marginalised in *both* mainstream "science" and "theology"!
JR>Some are hesitant to see it as part of reason, others even as
>any part of reality (God worked entirely through natural means not just so
>far as science can deal with it, but -period-.).
See above. Howard and his ilk are in the "period" category, because they try to
buttress their arguments with a theological doctrine of creation's "functional
integrity" and "gapless economy".
>SJ>Indeed, Behe is a case in point. He accepts the evidence for common
>>descent (as I do) but does not see that as ruling out God working
>>supernaturally through natural processes.
JR>Depending utterly on just what one means through "working supernaturally
>through natural processes", I think most EC/TEs would agree. But that's a
>tricky phrase. (Not meaningless, just tricky.)
It is not "tricky" at all. It means *exactly* what it says.
>>JR>Now, if I understand you, you're saying that ID is compatible
>>>with basically any Christian theory of creation -- every one I listed, anyway.
>SJ>Yes. That should be obvious if TE/ECs paid attention to what Johnson and
>>other ID leaders said, for example:...(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993,
p14)
JR>But doesn't Johnson go on to say that all the evidence points -instead- to
>ID? That is, while Christianity is compatible with EC/ET, ID is not?
Johnson does say that "the evidence points...to ID" but he has never said
that "ID is not...compatible with EC/ET". Indeed, if he said that
"Christianity is compatible with EC/ET" then he would have to say that
EC/TE is compatible with ID.
Johnson is happy for EC/TE to make its case within ID, but not to try to
*exclude in advance* what Howard calls "episodic creation".
>SJ>instead of viewing them through "Inherit the Wind" filters as
>>>crypto-YECs, as Howard did when he launched his attack on Phil by implying
>>>that Phil was, the same as a fundamentalist scientific creationist:....." (Van Till
>>>H.J., "God and Evolution: An Exchange..., First Things, June 1993...)
JR>I don't have time to re-read that right now, but I'll let Howard speak for
>Howard, should he wish to. (He's better at it than I. :^>)
John does not have to read the whole article. Howard's opening salvo which I
quoted should be enough for him to admit my point was correct.
>>JR>I have no problem with this, but then I don't know what all the fuss is
>>>about.
>SJ>The "fuss" is mostly on the TE/EC side. It is the *TE/ECs* who first
>>attacked Phil Johnson when he appeared on the scene. The first edition of
>>Darwin on Trial had almost nothing about TEs in it. It was only after
>>attacks by all the TE leaders that Johnson knew that there was something
>>deeper behind TE, namely Theistic Naturalism, and he was forced to
>>defend himself.
JR>I think Johnson, being extremely smart but neither a scientist nor a
>philosopher, has missed it here, or perhaps more precisely, erroneously
>overstated his case.
Whether Johnson is "a scientist" or "a philosopher" or not is *irrelevant*.
There are plenty of scientists and philosophers (and laymen) in the ID
movement who agree with him.
JR>(As an aside: I know, he's a master logician, etc. --
>but actually, American lawyers are trained to -win arguments- [and law
>professors train other soon-to-be-lawyers to do so], not to get to the truth
>whatever it may be. -Truth- is the job of the legal system; -winning- is
>the job of the lawyer. Ask an American lawyer.)
This is just an ad hominem, which, as always is an excuse not to argue the
facts. John has no idea what Phil taught his students. But if lawyers are
trained to spot evidentiary holes and the false arguments in the opposing
side's case, and if Johnson is "a master logician" then it he is *exactly* the
person with the right sort of training to expose the weaknesses of
Darwinism!
JR>...(I know this is Johnson's
>perhaps hyperbolic point -- that EC/TEs contradict themselves -- but
>obviously, those who accept EC/ET, or even see it as a live option, disagree
>with him.)
Johnson's point is that the contradiction is not easy to see, especially for
those who have been trained in materialistic-naturalistic science.
>>JR>I -suspect- you're taking ID in too broad a sense, though, given the
>>>other stuff I've read earlier.
>SJ>I am *living proof* that what I say is correct. [...] I am a member of the ID
>>movement in good standing (even with YECs), even though I quite openly
>>accept common descent. So is Mike Behe for that matter.
JR>Common descent is necessary but not sufficient for EC/TE, no?
"Common descent is necessary but not sufficient for" *evolution*. As Denton
points out common descent is compatible with a wide range of philosophies of
nature, including some forms of creationism:
"It is true that both genuine homologous resemblance...and the hierarchic
patterns of class relationships are suggestive of some kind of theory of
descent. But neither tell us anything about how the descent or evolution
might have occurred, as to whether the process was gradual or sudden, or
as to whether the causal mechanism was Darwinian, Lamarckian, vitalistic
or even creationist. Such a theory of descent is therefore devoid of any
significant meaning and equally compatible with almost any philosophy of
nature." (Denton M.J., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," 1985, pp154-155)
>>JR>My own suspicion is that something like what
>>>Howard says is right: "ID" as it's usually used (by Christians anyway)
>>>implies (and, as you've pointed out, is strongly motivated by) "episodic
>>>creationism."
>SJ>Of *course* ID has a strong component of what Howard pejoratively calls
>>"episodic creationism." Apart from it being what Genesis 1 depicts (whether
>>one interprets it literally or symbolically), the hostility of TE/ECs to IDers
>>and therefore the lack of participation by TE/ECs in the ID movement,
>>automatically means that that would be the case.
JR>So in your view, episodic creationism is not an essential part of ID?
I have already said earlier in this post (it is still there) that "ID does not
exclude EC/TEs or YECs" .
>SJ>The challenge is for leaders of the TE/EC movement to drop their hostility
>>to IDers and accept that what Howard calls "episodic creationism" is a
>>*legitimate* part of an ID research program.
JR>***I think this is the big issue about ID, not so much whether or not this
>could be a part of reality (most, but I guess not all, Christians agree that
>it could in principle, anyway), but whether it's properly part of science.
>Most Christian scientists, and -nearly all- non-Christian scientists, would
>disagree.
So what else is new? The goal of the ID movement is to turn this around. If
one likes the materialist status quo, then one will cling to EC/TE, even
though it has failed to make any significant inroads into the scientific
community and has alienated a large part of the Christian community.
But if one wants to be part of the beginning of an exciting new scientific
movement that has the potential to transform science and society in the
21st Century, then one could joint the ID movement!
JR>BUT: IFF ID theorists can start unambiguously generating and confirming
>clear theoretical predictions that impress not only themselves (that's easy
>for the proponents of ANY new theory) or laymen (ditto) but other
>scientists, I can -easily imagine- the commitment to methodological
>naturalism being relaxed.
This is a false argument. The opposition to ID, namely materialistic-
naturalism, does not unambiguously generate and confirm any clear
theoretical predictions either.
JR>Right now, -this is still imagination only-. Regardless of the passion of
>the argument, the scientific world (as opposed to the philosophical world,
>or the theological world) generally -won't even begin- to take ID theory
>seriously until they come up with some -objectively-
>(or -intersubjectively-) impressive results.
Actually there are a number of scientists who are beginning to take ID
seriously. But in the end it may be that the majority of scientists with
remain opposed to ID for metaphysical reasons. If ID continues to grow
and a majority of scientists continue to be opposed to ID, it is possible that
science will split in two in the 21st Century, ie. into an ID-based and
materialist-based science.
JR>ID theorists believe they are taking steps in that direction, and I'd be
>thrilled if they're right, but there's nothing compelling (to me, or to
>outsiders) just yet. And that Behe's thesis is a key part of it scares me a
>lot -- a pretty weak foundation, if I understand his thesis.
>***
Personally I doubt that John would *really* be "thrilled if" ID were "right".
His claim that "Mike Behe's thesis" ie. of irreducible complexity, "scares"
him is evidence of that.
Why would John be "scared" that an Intelligent Designer might have
worked supernaturally to construct the blood-clotting cascade if he really
was "thrilled" if ID were right?
[...]
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of
any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually
static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never
show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by
another, and change is more or less abrupt..." (Wesson R.G., "Beyond
Natural Selection," [1991], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1994, reprint, p45)
--------------------------------------------------------------------